© 2006 Cognizant Comm. Corp. www.cognizantcommunication.com
DESTINATION IMAGE: THE CASE OF TURKEY
ASLI D. A. TASCI,* SELMA UYGUR MEYDAN,† and S. TAMER CAVUSGIL‡ *School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Mugla University, Kotekli Kampusu, Mugla, Turkey †Faculty of Commerce and Tourism Education, Gazi University, Incitasi Sok. Golbasi, Ankara, Turkey ‡The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Despite ample tourism assets and several decades of tourism development, Turkey still does not have a competitive edge in international tourism. A relatively negative image and/or lack of image are cited as one factor among several others in Turkey’s low tourism arrivals and revenues relative to other Mediterranean destinations. Few researchers have measured the image of Turkey and even fewer have done so in the context of international travel. In this study, Turkey’s image as an international travel destination was measured using a student population from the US. The findings confirm previous research in terms of Turkey’s negative image shaped by stereotypical conceptions rather than factual information. Managerial implications and suggestions for future research are provided.
Key words: Destination image; Image management; Image measurement; Image of Turkey; Image formation
Introduction noes, and plateaus marked by valleys and plains.
The climate is temperate but varies noticeably from region to region. Therefore, Turkey has some Turkey offers natural beauty for all kinds of
tourism and sport, as well as unique historical and of the richest fauna and flora in Europe and the
Middle East. Among its more than 10,000 species archeological sites, a steadily improving touristic
infrastructure, a tradition of hospitality, competi- of plants, 20% can be found only in Turkey. There
are more than 114 species of mammals, about 800 tive prices, and a rich cuisine (Korzay, 1994; Sezer
& Harrison, 1994). This vast peninsula of 778,000 species of aquatic birds, and roughly 400 species
of indigenous or migratory birds. Turkey has
his-km2 links Asia to Europe through the Sea of
Marmara and the Straits of Istanbul and Canak- toric treasures from 13 successive civilizations
spanning 10,000 years and dating back to 6500 kale. Surrounded by warm seas on three sides,
Turkey has many different natural features, in- B.C. The country has a secular, democratic,
plural-istic parliamentary system and a free-market econ-cluding parallel mountain ranges, extinct
volca-Address correspondence to S. Tamer Cavusgil, Faculty, The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, N370 Business College Complex, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Tel: (517) 432-4320; Fax: (517) 432-4322; E-mail: cavusgil@ msu.edu
omy. Politically, Turkey has been an active part of tation share remained close to that of 1991 (Turk-ish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2002). the modern world since the late 1940s, including
membership in the United Nations, the European Despite ample tourism assets and efforts,
Tur-key does not have a competitive edge in interna-Council, and NATO. It has been loyal to allies in
such international issues as the Korean War and tional tourism (Kotler & Gertner, 2002; Sonmez
& Sirakaya, 2002). Tourist arrivals and revenues the Gulf War.
Although Turkish authorities recognized tour- are lower than for other Mediterranean
destina-tions. Turkey attracts considerably fewer tourists ism as an important economic activity in the early
decades of the 20th century, tourism-related insti- than do Mediterranean countries with similar
at-tractions, such as Spain, Greece, and Italy (Baloglu tutions were confined to the private sector until
1949 (Sezer & Harrison, 1994). That year, the & McCleary, 1999; Korzay, 1994; Ozsoy, 1999;
Sezer & Harrison, 1994; Sonmez & Sirakaya, First Tourism Advisory Committee met and
pro-duced a report that set the basis for national policy 2002). According to the World Tourism
Organiza-tion (2004), in 2002 Spain was second from the (Sezer & Harrison, 1994, p. 80). Until 1963, the
so-called preplanned period, the focus was on top in the region, with about 51.7 million foreign
visitors, and Italy was fourth with about 39.8 mil-building awareness about the importance of
tour-ism (Korzay, 1994) rather than planning and im- lion arrivals; Greece was in 13th place, and
Tur-key was not in the top 15. In terms of earnings plementing well-defined strategies (Sezer &
Har-rison, 1994). from tourism, Spain and Italy kept their second
and fourth positions with $33.6 billion and $26.9 Starting in 1963, the planned period, tourism
was advocated as a tool for economic develop- billion, respectively, while Greece was 10th, with
$9.7 billion, and Turkey was 12th, with $9 billion. ment (Korzay, 1994) and was included in the first
Five-Year Plan objectives and responsibilities for Several factors that are also believed to induce
a negative image for Turkey have been cited for both public and private sectors (Sezer & Harrison,
1994). In the early 1980s, tourism received in- the country’s failure to advance in the
interna-tional tourism arena. Managerial reasons include creased attention from the government, which
sought to provide impetus through monetary in- missed opportunities and inappropriate tourism
development due to the lack of planning, control, centives, “privatization of the public sector,
dereg-ulation of industry and services, the liberation of appropriate tourism culture, and participation by
local people, worsened by the “abuse of political import and export regimes, simplification of
in-vestment procedures, and the creation of a con- power” and a “get-rich-quick mentality” (Korzay,
1994; Sezer & Harrison, 1994, p. 82). Also men-temporary tourism culture based on the modern
principles of tourism” (Sezer & Harrison, 1994, tioned are Turkey’s political instability, including
military coups in 1960, 1970, and 1980; the Turk-p. 80).
Attention to tourism education, including an ish-Greek conflict in Cyprus in the 1970s; the
problem of hashish farming in the 1970s, along emphasis on learning foreign languages, along
with improvements in infrastructure and super- with the Midnight Express movie in 1978;
system-atic terrorist acts of the PKK, an armed Kurdish structure as well as increased research and
devel-opment activities helped tourism become a major terrorist organization, in the 1980s and 1990s; and
the earthquake of 1999 (Kotler & Gertner, 2002; economic activity in Turkey (Korzay, 1994; Sezer
& Harrison, 1994). The tourism share of GDP was Sezer & Harrison, 1994; Sonmez & Sirakaya,
2002). Moreover, events in neighboring countries, 1.8% in 1991 and 6% in 2001 (T.C. Turizm
Bakan-lıg˘ı [Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism], such as the Gulf War, the NATO–Serb conflict,
and US operations in Iraq have had a dramatic ef-2002). In 1991 the share of tourism in export
reve-nue was 19.5% while its share in the cost of im- fect on the Turkish tourism industry (Sezer &
Har-rison, 1994; Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002). portation was 2.8%, which left a positive balance
of payments. The share of tourism revenues in ex- As destination image is also believed to
influ-ence visitation (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Chon, portation increased to 22.9% in 1995, 27.8% in
1996), a few studies measure the image of Turkey, Crompton, 1991; Fridgen, 1987; Gartner, 1993). Image is also influential in some supply side as-but very few involve the context of international
travel (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Baloglu & Mc- pects, including positioning and promotion (Baloglu
& Brinberg, 1997; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Cleary, 1999; Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002). Thus,
this empirical research is intended to measure the Calantone, Benedetto, Hakam, & Bojanic, 1989;
P. J. Chen & Kerstetter, 1999; Fridgen, 1987; image of Turkey as an international travel
destina-tion by applying a multimethod and comprehen- Walmsley & Young, 1998).
Destination image is difficult to measure be-sive instrument, similar to the one suggested by
Echtner and Ritchie (1993), and compare the re- cause there are many possible factors influencing
destination image (Gartner, 1993). Despite the dif-sults with the previous research on the image of
Turkey. The following section is a brief review ficulty, several researchers have used different
methods and techniques. Earlier work employed of work on destination image and measurement,
followed by a critical discussion of findings and mainly quantitative methods with structured
sur-veys (Calantone et al., 1989; Crompton, 1979; methods in a few studies on the image of Turkey.
Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Gartner, 1989; Good-rich, 1978; Hunt, 1975). Reilly (1990) is one of Destination Image and Its Measurement
the few to use solely open-ended questions, an
ap-Kotler (1994) defines image as “net results of a proach that can reveal subject-salient and unique
person’s beliefs, ideas, feelings, expectations and or idiosyncratic responses or lack of responses in
impressions about a place” (p. 223). Crompton’s a relatively more parsimonious way. Yet the study
(1979) definition of destination image is widely concludes with cautions about potential bias due
accepted one: “the sum of beliefs, ideas, and im- to the subjective interpretations of the researcher,
pressions that a person has of a destination” (p. 18). hence the lack of reliability and/or validity;
how-Destination image is postulated to comprise both ever, techniques such as triangulation and
inter-an affective component—feelings toward the des- rater reliability, etc., are commonly used in good
tination—and a cognitive component—factual in- qualitative research to eliminate bias. Echtner and
formation about the destination (Gartner, 1993). It Ritchie (1993) recommend quantitative methods
is argued that destination image can be formed to measure common characteristics and
destina-through information sources (Bojanic, 1991; Gart- tion attributes and qualitative methods to identify
ner, 1993) and even in the absence of any com- holistic and psychological impressions about a
mercial information (Alhemoud & Armstrong, destination. This multiple approach includes both
1996; Ger, 1997; Tolunguc, 1999). Destination structured and open-ended questions. Several
re-image can be shaped by commercial information searchers followed the recommendations and sought
sourcing from the destination, other independent free descriptions by respondents (Baloglu &
Man-information sources, such as school materials and galoglu, 2001; Dann, 1996; Lubbe, 1998; MacKay
the media, as well as the personal factors of an & Fesenmaier, 1997; Murphy, 1999; Selby &
individual, such as demographics and previous ex- Morgan, 1996; Tapachai & Waryszak, 2000;
Wal-perience (Gartner, 1993). It is also proposed that msley & Young, 1998).
the image of a destination depends on the context of the inquiry (Ger, 1997; Hu & Ritchie, 1993).
The Image of Turkey The image held by current and potential visitors
is commonly accepted as an important factor in Turkish governments have long realized the
importance of country image for international rela-the overall success of a tourism destination (P. J.
Chen & Kerstetter, 1999; Crompton, 1979; Dad- tions as well as international tourism. In the late
stages of the Ottoman Empire, significant image-gostar & Isotalo, 1992; Hunt, 1975) because of its
effect on tourist decision making or travel destina- building activities were undertaken, such as
send-ing a ship full of important officers overseas to tion choice (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Bramwell
& Rawding, 1996; J. S. Chen & Hsu, 2000; P. J. build a good image of the empire (Ozsoy, 1999).
Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey after Chen & Kerstetter, 1999; Dann, 1996; Fakeye &
the Ottoman collapse, continued image mainte- was only higher than that of Algeria. The content analysis also revealed that respondents’ thoughts nance even during the War of Independence in the
1920s (Ozsoy, 1999). Today, considerable funding about Turkey were related to “physical
character-istics and sights; history and culture; and the eco-is spent on promotional activities for image
man-agement, but the image of Turkey and its people nomic, political and social situation” (p. 393), 60%
of which were judged as positive by the respon-is still not at the desired level, especially in the
Western world; there is either a lack of image or dents. Yet, Turkey was also perceived to be a
non-European country with a Muslim and Arabic cul-a relcul-atively negcul-ative one (Aslcul-antcul-as, 2002; Bcul-aloglu
& Brinberg, 1997; Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001; ture marked by a mixture of Eastern, Western,
North African, and Middle Eastern influences. Ger Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Ger, 1991, 1997;
Oz-soy, 1999; Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002; Tolunguc, found that respondents with personal experience
and higher levels of knowledge had more thoughts 1999; Yesiltepe, 2003; Yildirim, 2002).
The contemporary image of Turkey is still about and better ratings of Turkey. In another
study with a quantitative survey design, Ger (1997) shadowed by stereotypes dating from the Ottoman
Empire, with connotations of mostly medieval wars employed a similar questionnaire with additional
free elicitation items. The 660 Western college and political events, accentuated by cultural and
religious differences between Turkey and the students, Americans and Europeans, yielded
simi-lar results as well as additional but rather negative Western world (Aslantas, 2002; Ger, 1997;
Kirci-oglu & Nazilli, 1983; Ozsoy, 1999; Tolunguc, descriptions of Turkish people.
As stated before, the image of a country is pos-1999; Yesiltepe, 2003; Yildirim, 2002). Possibly
due to its Muslim culture, Turkey is associated tulated to be dependent on the context (Ger, 1997;
Hu & Ritchie, 1993). Aside from studies of Tur-with Arabic culture and an unpleasant desert
cli-mate (Kircioglu & Nazilli, 1983; Tolunguc, 1999). key’s general image, a few researchers have
at-tempted to measure its image as a travel destination. Also, the image of Turkey is tainted by
informa-tion from the mass media concerning internal Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) asked 60 American
college students to compare Turkey with the same problems or conflicts with neighbors (Ger, 1997;
Kircioglu & Nazilli, 1983; Ozsoy, 1999; Sonmez 10 Mediterranean countries mentioned previously,
except they switched Yugoslavia with Tunisia. They & Sirakaya, 2002).
A few studies have measured the image of Tur- used a predeveloped 7-point bipolar affective
eval-uation scale with four adjectives (pleasant–unpleas-key held by Western societies. Ger (1991)
em-ployed an experimental design with 119 European ant, relaxing–distressing, arousing–sleepy, and
ex-citing–gloomy). They found that Turkey, along college students to reveal the image of Turkey in
comparison with 10 Mediterranean countries. Her with Israel and Algeria, had a rather unpleasant
and distressing affective image. comprehensive set of questions included both
open-ended and closed descriptive, evaluative, and In another study, Baloglu and McCleary (1999)
surveyed 448 potential international pleasure trav-comparative items measured on a 7-point
similar-ity scale, a 7-point semantic differential scale, and elers who requested information about Turkey.
The comparison was with only three other Medi-a 7-point knowledge level scMedi-ale, Medi-as well Medi-as
ques-tions prompting free responses, favorability, and terranean countries (Italy, Greece, and Egypt),
us-ing the 7-point bipolar affective evaluation scale familiarity. Turkey was associated with European,
African, and Middle Eastern countries, including with four adjectives, plus a 5-point Likert scale
with 14 image attributes. They found a relatively Greece, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco,
Is-rael, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. A content analysis of more positive image of Turkey but cautioned
about possible bias, because the incentive offered the free responses to determine reasons for
per-ceived similarities revealed “location, landscape to increase the participation rate included free
pack-age tours to Turkey. and climate, history, culture and traditions,
reli-gion, and people, attitudes and lifestyles” (p. 392) To investigate the role of destination image in
decisions of potential tourists, Sonmez and Sira-as the possible explanations for these Sira-associations.
a random sample of 552 individuals in the US, measured the image of Turkey held by travel agents. Emphasizing the influential role of travel Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands who were
either interested or experienced in international intermediaries as information sources, distribution
channels, and image creators, Baloglu and Manga-travel but had not visited Turkey. Image was
mea-sured using a combination of Likert-type and se- loglu (2001) repeated Baloglu and McCleary’s
(1999) study of US-based tour operators and travel mantic differential scales: 1) 56 cognitive image
questions consisting of 6-point Likert-type items agents who did business with any of the study
des-tinations: Turkey, Italy, Greece, and Egypt. In ad-(a modified version of the list developed by
Echt-ner & Ritchie, 1993), 2) 26 affective image ques- dition to the 7-point bipolar affective evaluation
scale and 5-point Likert scale with 14 image attri-tions consisting of 7-point semantic differential
items (e.g., negative/positive, secure/risky), and 3) butes, they used an open-ended question asking
for free associations with three nouns or adjec-the appeal of Turkey as a tourist destination
mea-sured by a single 6-point Likert-type item. tives. Turkey’s rating was significantly higher than
Greece and Italy on the dimension of value for All image factors in the Sonmez and Sirakaya
(2002) study had grand means around the mid- money, higher than Egypt on local cuisine, but
points of the scales. Cognitive factors ranked be- lower than Greece on nightlife and entertainment,
tween 2.85 (Outdoor recreation opportunities) and and lower than Italy on standard hygiene and
4.12 (Local attractions and hospitality), while af- cleanliness. Responses to the open-ended question
fective factors ranked between 3.16 (Authenticity revealed that Turkey had associations with ancient
of experience) and 4.65 (General mood and vaca- ruins, historic, old, and archeology, as well as
tion atmosphere). About 46% of the respondents mystic, intriguing, and mysterious.
were not at all familiar with Turkey, and only about Kozak (2003) measured the image of Turkey
3% were highly familiar, which may account for held by about 350 travel agents in Australia and
the unappealing perception of Turkey by so many New Zealand using the image items from Baloglu
respondents (41%). About 88% of respondents and Mangaloglu (2001) as well as a few other
were unlikely to travel to Turkey on their next in- items offered by practitioners in the Turkish
tour-ternational vacation. To predict the likelihood of ism industry. He found that Turkey’s historical
choosing Turkey as the next vacation destination, and cultural amenities are known but not its riches
the researchers used forward multiple regression in hot springs, flora, and fauna. Also, the
respon-with 10 image factors, two information source fac- dents did not have a clear conception of Turkey as
tors, Turkey’s overall appeal, familiarity with Tur- a Western country.
key, past travel experience, intention for future
travel, and demographic variables as independent Methods
variables. Found to be significant were Turkey’s
Seventy-one senior and junior marketing stu-overall appeal, safe and hospitable environment,
dents at Michigan State University took part in general mood and vacation atmosphere, travel
ex-this study. The use of students is very common in perience, relaxing effect, local attractions and
hos-destination image studies, even though they do not pitality, authenticity of experience, social and
per-represent the target population of international sonal communication channels, comfort/safety, and
travelers (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; P. J. Chen & tourist facilitation, in that order of importance.
Kerstetter, 1999; Echtner & Ritchie, 1993; MacKay Several researchers believe that population
seg-& Fesenmaier, 2000; Tapachai seg-& Waryszak, ments with different characteristics will have
dif-2000). Nevertheless, they constitute a valuable ferent images of a country based on their
socio-segment due to their current and future travel pro-demographics and experiences (Alhemoud &
pensity. “Study abroad” programs, as a special Armstrong, 1996; Baloglu, 2001; P. J. Chen &
segment of international tourism, are likely to both Kerstetter, 1999; Joppe, Martin, & Waalen, 2001;
affect and be affected by destination image. Based MacKay & Fesenmaier, 2000). Realizing the
in-on their impressiin-on of destinatiin-ons, students will fluence of travel intermediaries, especially for
their needs and interests. Although the young can first three things that come to their mind when they think of Turkey in terms of: 1) general im-be more risk taking than the elderly, it is logical
to assume that they will be drawn to destinations ages or characteristics, 2) the atmosphere or mood
that they would expect to experience, 3) tourist with a positive rather than negative image. Upon
visiting those destinations, students will confirm attractions that are distinctive or unique to Turkey,
and 4) popular tourist activities. In addition, one or change their previous image depending on their
experiences. Because destination image is very re- Likert-type item was designed to measure the
ho-listic image of Turkey. The purpose of developing sistant to change (Bojanic, 1991; P. J. Chen &
Kerstetter, 1999; Crompton, 1979; Fakeye & Cromp- such a comprehensive instrument was to achieve
capturing the multicomponent nature of destina-ton, 1991; Gartner, 1993; Gartner & Shen, 1992;
Selby & Morgan, 1996), the image that students tion image, including cognitive, affective, and
conative (Gartner, 1993) as well as common– form about a country may persist into adulthood.
In summary, students are an important research unique and attribute–holistic components (Echtner
& Ritchie 1993). Subjects were informed to an-segment for current visit rate, future visit
poten-tial, and image development of international desti- swer questions on Turkey as an international travel
destination. The questionnaire also contained items nations. As competition increases in the
interna-tional travel market, it would be advisable to to measure the sociodemographic characteristics
of the subjects that were postulated to influence target student populations and strengthen or
mod-ify their destination images before they become destination image in previous studies, including
their study major, gender, household income, age, entrenched negative impressions.
A mixed mode was used to survey the study and ethnic origin. Frequencies, descriptive
statis-tics, and exploratory factor analysis were used to population; 49 students used the self-administered
paper survey and 22 responded online. The origi- analyze these items.
Eighty percent of these students were seniors nal purpose was to compare the results of these
two modes of data collection, using two classes of and 20% were juniors who were majoring mostly
in marketing (69%) but also supply chain manage-equal number of students; however, the online
mode did not receive the intended amount of re- ment (12.7%), general business management (7%),
accounting (2.8%), finance (1.4%), and communi-sponses. The researchers (Turkish, but not known
by the subjects to eliminate bias) were present for cation (1.4%). There were slightly more females
(51.5%) than males (47.1%). The majority (78.5%) the self-administered survey, while there was no
such incentive for the online mode; the students reported $50,000 or more total household income
in 2002, followed by $30,000–$49,000 (13.8%), were invited to participate in the online survey at
their own convenience. The survey was programmed less than $10,000 (4.6%), and $10,000–$29,000
(3.1%). Their age, which varied between 18 and as an HTML file and placed on the server of the
Center for International Business Education and 25 years, was 21.10 on average. Respondents’
an-cestral origin was mainly European (81%), fol-Research (CIBER) at Michigan State University.
The nonresponse to the online mode might signal lowed by North American (10%), Asian (6%), and
African (3%). the need for more creative incentives to get subject
cooperation in online studies. Past travel behavior questions such as previous
visits to Turkey and other international destina-The survey instrument contained 21 7-point
Likert-type image measurement items including tions were also included in the survey. Although
48 of these respondents had traveled abroad for the commonly known touristic attributes of
Tur-key derived from previous research as well as vacation purposes, only one had visited Turkey
and 32 reported previous interaction with a Turk-opinions of the three Turkish academicians. Also,
four open-ended questions were included to prompt ish person. Therefore, the image measured using
this segment mostly refers to the image induced free descriptions of general images and
atmo-sphere (as suggested by Echtner & Ritchie, 1993) through information sources (Gartner, 1993).
Vis-its to other international destinations may also be as well as known activities and attractions of
not investigated in this study due to inadequate of the 21 attributes, which was 3.65, could
logi-sample size for statistical comparisons between cally be considered as the induced holistic image
groups. of Turkey; however, the measured holistic image,
“Overall impressions of Turkey,” was a little
Results lower, 3.57. Although the difference is very small,
it points to another negativity. As a whole, Turkey Table 1 contains the 21 dimensions that
mea-was evaluated a little more negatively than the sure the image attributes of Turkey as well as the
sum of its parts. overall impressions item intended to measure the
The correlation matrix for image items is pro-country’s holistic image. The descriptive statistics
vided in Table 2. As can be seen, there were cor-reveal an image rather on the negative side,
al-relations as high as 0.774 and as low as 0.007.
though many items received the perfect rating (1=
Factor analysis tries to provide the maximum ex-Excellent) from one or more respondents. Eight
planation of the original variables with the fewest items never received the perfect rating, but all
factors, so a correlation between variables greater items received some level of poor rating (from 5
than 0.30 is desired (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & to 7) from one or more respondents. Mean ratings
Black, 1998). Despite the low correlation between were approximately between good (3) and poor
some items, the questionnaire seemed to be highly (5). The rating of the “Safety and security”
dimen-stable, because the Cronbach’s alpha for the 21 sion was the worst (4.51), while that of “Unique
image measurement items was 0.91. culture and customs” was the best (2.54), although
Exploratory factor analysis was applied to the even this item was rated somewhere between very
21 image measurement items to derive fewer, mean-good and mean-good, not excellent. Standard deviations
ingful, and uncorrelated factors. Principal compo-were rather high, which indicates a lack of
consen-nent analysis was used as the initial method to ex-sus among the respondents regarding the quality
of Turkey’s image attributes. The arithmetic mean tract uncorrelated factors, which are organized in
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Image Items
Item No. Item N Min. Max. Mean SD
18 Unique culture/customs 67 1 6 2.54 1.08
6 Amount of cultural/heritage attractions 68 1 5 2.69 1.14
2 Scenic beauty 67 1 7 3.04 1.22
7 Variety of outdoor activities 68 1 6 3.22 1.18
19 Exciting features 67 1 7 3.34 1.27
17 Peoples’ friendliness/hospitality 67 1 6 3.37 1.06
11 Cuisine 68 1 7 3.40 1.28
22 Overall impressions of Turkey 68 1 6 3.57 1.03
1 Variety of natural resources 67 2 6 3.60 0.99
5 Quality of restaurants 68 1 7 3.66 1.14
8 Quality of services 67 1 6 3.76 1.13
3 Beaches/water resources 67 1 7 3.76 1.54
9 Value for money 68 1 7 3.79 1.46
20 Nightlife opportunities 67 1 6 3.87 1.19
4 Availability of tourist information 68 1 6 3.96 1.15
10 Local transportation 67 2 7 4.01 1.13
16 Peoples’ ability to speak English 68 1 6 4.03 1.04 15 Quality of accommodation facilities 68 2 6 4.09 .88
12 Cleanliness 68 1 7 4.15 1.11
21 Modernity of lifestyle 68 2 7 4.18 1.06
14 Quality of infrastructure 66 2 6 4.20 0.96
13 Safety and security 68 2 7 4.51 1.04
The items are ordered according to ascending mean values. Scale: 1= Excellent, 2 = Very Good, 3= Good, 4 = Fair, 5 = Poor, 6 = Very Poor, 7 = Extremely Poor.
Table 2 Correlation Matrix of 21 Image Attributes Pearson Corr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 11 2 0.640 1 0.000 3 0.480 0.692 1 0.000 0.000 4 0.174 0.264 0.261 1 0.192 0.045 0.048 5 0.252 0.408 0.264 0.444 1 0.056 0.001 0.045 0.000 6 0.093 0.416 0.283 0.440 0.418 1 0.490 0.001 0.031 0.001 0.001 7 0.432 0.660 0.584 0.242 0.276 0.492 1 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.036 0.000 8 0.189 0.449 0.260 0.420 0.455 0.328 0.266 1 0.156 0.000 0.049 0.001 0.000 0.012 0.043 9 0.314 0.377 0.182 0.283 0.417 0.307 0.240 0.538 1 0.016 0.004 0.171 0.031 0.001 0.019 0.070 0.000 10 0.142 0.253 0.098 0.371 0.286 0.211 0.319 0.491 0.402 1 0.288 0.055 0.464 0.004 0.030 0.112 0.015 0.000 0.002 11 0.254 0.403 0.327 0.339 0.738 0.463 0.487 0.418 0.442 0.479 1 0.055 0.002 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 12 − 0.032 0.040 0.047 0.146 0.131 0.018 0.037 0.357 0.069 0.207 0.222 1 0.814 0.766 0.725 0.275 0.327 0.891 0.785 0.006 0.606 0.119 0.094 13 − 0.125 0.043 0.059 0.106 − 0.086 0.070 − 0.016 0.256 0.028 0.095 − 0.081 0.660 1 0.350 0.751 0.662 0.426 0.520 0.603 0.907 0.052 0.837 0.477 0.543 0.000 14 0.230 0.372 0.286 0.264 0.234 0.197 0.216 0.466 0.417 0.231 0.096 0.395 0.567 1 0.082 0.004 0.030 0.045 0.077 0.138 0.103 0.000 0.001 0.081 0.473 0.002 0.000 15 0.277 0.443 0.333 0.312 0.335 0.386 0.422 0.580 0.351 0.390 0.355 0.425 0.455 0.713 1 0.035 0.000 0.011 0.017 0.010 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.007 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 16 0.162 0.095 0.105 0.369 0.080 0.197 0.214 0.252 0.104 0.359 0.131 0.372 0.268 0.419 0.498 1 0.224 0.476 0.433 0.004 0.552 0.139 0.106 0.056 0.436 0.006 0.327 0.004 0.042 0.001 0.000 17 − 0.057 0.173 0.212 0.153 0.275 0.358 0.330 0.458 0.098 0.359 0.285 0.309 0.203 0.303 0.551 0.422 1 0.672 0.194 0.110 0.252 0.037 0.006 0.011 0.000 0.465 0.006 0.030 0.018 0.126 0.021 0.000 0.001 18 0.247 0.425 0.297 0.057 0.227 0.660 0.475 0.276 0.278 0.121 0.332 − 0.013 − 0.055 0.240 0.390 0.074 0.319 1 0.062 0.001 0.023 0.671 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.034 0.367 0.011 0.923 0.682 0.070 0.002 0.582 0.015 19 0.350 0.626 0.539 0.250 0.406 0.496 0.599 0.550 0.519 0.231 0.458 0.155 0.007 0.445 0.564 0.202 0.400 0.573 1 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.081 0.000 0.244 0.961 0.000 0.000 0.128 0.002 0.000 20 0.296 0.495 0.627 0.398 0.373 0.384 0.585 0.434 0.255 0.280 0.512 0.153 0.064 0.286 0.470 0.322 0.372 0.332 0.710 1 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.054 0.033 0.000 0.251 0.633 0.030 0.000 0.014 0.004 0.011 0.000 21 0.257 0.483 0.502 0.333 0.363 0.267 0.491 0.633 0.314 0.365 0.314 0.350 0.315 0.619 0.678 0.388 0.510 0.314 0.705 0.645 1 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.005 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.005 0.016 0.007 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 Note: Listwise deleted, N = 58. Significance test (two-tailed). Correlations in bold are significant at 0.05 or 0.01 level.
order of decreasing explained variances. Factors to basic human needs, especially for a foreign tour-ist destination, and thus the name “Basics.” With with eigenvalues exceeding 1 were kept, because
those represent the variance equal to or more than subtle differences, Factor III is composed of
di-mensions that refer to comforts and conveniences that of the average original variable. The initial
factors were rotated using Varimax. Items are ro- that tourists usually want on a trip, and so the term
“Comfort.” Finally, Factor IV dimensions are cul-tated orthogonally and thus are more meaningful,
because they are forced to approach the limits of 0 tural in content, and thus the label “Culture.” All
factors except III include both cognitive attributes, and +1 (Hair et al., 1998). Variables with loadings
closer to 1 have good correlation with the factor which refer to factual knowledge about a
destina-tion, and affective attributes, which refer to feel-on which they load (Hair et al., 1998). Variables
with substantial loadings, equal to or greater than ings and attitudes toward a destination.
The grand means were 3.49 for Factor I, 4.18 0.5, are considered as practically significant (Hair
et al., 1998) and thus are used to represent the for Factor II, 3.76 for Factor III, and 2.89 for
Fac-tor IV. These were rather low ratings on the 7-factors.
The results of the first factor analysis revealed point scale (1= Excellent, 7 = Extremely poor).
The ranking of quality perception was: Culture, five factors, with the “Value for money” item
solely loading onto a separate factor with a score Attractions, Comfort, and Basics. In other words,
although Turkey was rated average on all factors, of 0.664. Because at least three items are needed
to load onto a factor for it to be considered as a perceptions of Basics and Comfort were worse
than for Attractions and Culture. As a travel desti-meaningful sum of individual dimensions (Hair et
al., 1998), the factor analysis was repeated after nation, Turkey has some level of attraction but
does not look safe and comfortable enough for re-dropping the “Value for money” dimension. The
results of this second analysis are provided in Ta- spondents.
Open-ended questions asked respondents to list ble 3. As can be seen, four factors were extracted
with substantial loadings of 20 image dimensions what comes to mind in terms of general images or
characteristics, the atmosphere or mood that they with no cross-loadings. The factors explain
65.70% of the original variables. The computation would expect to experience, tourist attractions that
are distinctive or unique to Turkey, and popular for internal stability revealed high values of
Cron-bach’s alpha coefficient: α = 0.88 for Factor I, tourist activities. There were up to three response
spaces. The results are provided in Table 4. Al-α = 0.83 for Factor II, Al-α = 0.79 for Factor III, and
α = 0.75 for Factor IV. Because a Cronbach’s though there were many unique and idiosyncratic
responses to all open-ended questions, a reply pro-alpha of 0.70 is considered substantially stable
(Hair et al., 1998), these high coefficients indicate vided by 5% or more respondents was considered
to be common, which was the standard applied by that factors were stable with substantially high
internal consistencies. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Ger (1991) and Reilly (1990). This process
re-vealed the five most frequent responses for each (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.777.
KMO scores close to or above 0.7 are considered of the three response choices in each open-ended
question. a good indication that correlation patterns are
rela-tively compact, and factor analysis should yield Frequent responses given to the open-ended
questions clearly showed a lack of image about distinct and reliable factors.
Variable loadings of greater than 0.50 are con- Turkey in the minds of this segment. For each
open-ended question, the “no response” category sidered as practically significant enough to be kept
in a factor (Hair et al., 1998). Individual image was the most frequent, especially for tourist
attrac-tions and activities. Also, question mark (?) and dimensions showed good correlation with the
ex-tracted factors, and they were readily interpretable. “no idea” responses were provided for attractions
and activities, respectively. Thus, low ratings of A close examination of the factor dimensions
re-veals that Factor I includes features that people touristic attributes could be the effect of
stereotyp-ical conceptions about Turkey when factual infor-usually want in tourist destinations, and thus the
Table 3
Summary of Factor Analysis Results
% of Cumulative %
Factor Variance of Variance Factor Cronbach’s Image Dimensions & Factors Loadings Explained Explained Grand Mean Alpha Value
Factor I: Attractions 18.48 18.48 3.49 0.88
Scenic beauty (C) 0.822
Beaches/water resources (C) 0.804 Variety of natural resources (C) 0.802 Variety of outdoor activities (C) 0.621
Exciting features (A) 0.574
Nightlife opportunities (C) 0.550
Factor II: Basics 18.39 36.87 4.18 0.83
Safety and security (A) 0.823
Quality of infrastructure (C) 0.759
Cleanliness (C) 0.742
Quality of accommodation facilities (C) 0.698 Modernity of lifestyle (C) 0.596 Peoples’ ability to speak English (C) 0.584
Factor III: Comfort 14.82 51.69 3.76 0.79
Cuisine (C) 0.758
Quality of restaurants (C) 0.747 Availability of tourist information (C) 0.677 Local transportation (C) 0.661
Quality of services (C) 0.505
Factor IV: Culture 14.01 65.70 2.89 0.75
Unique culture/customs (C) 0.830 Amount of cultural/heritage attractions (C) 0.750 Peoples’ friendliness/hospitality (A) 0.564
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation con-verged in six iterations. Items ordered by the size of loadings. Bartlett’s test of sphericity= 0.000.
(C): cognitive image attribute. (A): affective image attribute.
and Baloglu and Mangaloglu (2001), this result strument. This study provides evidence of high
re-would not have been revealed by instruments with liability for the instrument. Also, the open-ended
predetermined rating scales only. questions proved useful in identifying the image
There were positive as well as negative re- salient to the subjects rather than to the
research-sponses to general images and atmosphere ques- ers. The instrument measures Turkey’s image
tions. As reported in the literature, students associ- comprehensively, and repeating this study would
ate Turkey with such terms as Middle Eastern, help monitor Turkey’s image across different
pop-Muslim, and Arabic and thus a desert climate. ulations and any changes over time.
Similar to the free association responses in Ba- This study measures solely the image of Turkey
loglu and Mangaloglu’s (2001) research, this rather than in comparison with its competitors.
study also reveals references to culture, history, Given the trust of this article is that the image of
and heritage in relation to both general images and Turkey is worse than some of its competitors, it
tourist attractions. would have been useful to see how the same
re-spondent population rated some of the competitors
Limitations using the same scale. Perhaps the other countries
would have received means at a similar or even This research is limited by the small size and
lower level. Therefore, the readers need to be care-homogeneity of the sample. For a more realistic
ful about the results given that image is probably measurement of image, larger and heterogeneous
relative to that of competitors. As poorer image samples are needed. Future work can be conducted
Table 4
Top Five Responses to the Open-Ended Questions
No. Mentioned No. Mentioned No. Mentioned Total No.
First Second Third Mentioned
General images or characteristics
No response given 9 19 36 64
Middle eastern/Muslim/Arabic 7 4 3 14
Culture/history/heritage 6 5 2 13
Desert/hot/dry 6 6 7 19
Beauty/scenery/landscape 4 4 5 13
The atmosphere or mood expected to experience
No response given 13 32 46 91
Calm/peaceful/relaxing 10 5 2 17
Friendly/nice 9 2 1 12
Fun/happy 4 2 1 7
Depressing/dark 4 0 0 4
Tourist attractions unique to Turkey
No response given 25 49 57 131
Istanbul 12 1 0 13
Water resources 7 1 0 8
? 5 2 1 8
Historical buildings & sites 4 3 4 11
Popular tourist activities
No response given 25 47 56 128
Sightseeing 10 7 1 18
Water activities 9 4 2 15
Dining 8 4 1 13
No idea 4 0 0 4
Note: Due to the small sample size, counts instead of percentages are provided. Responses generated by at least 5% of the sample were considered common. The columns add up to more than the sample size because each respondent could provide up to three responses.
lead to fewer tourists, the ratings of Turkey would sions that refer to comforts and conveniences that
tourists usually want on a trip), and 4) Culture (in-have to be compared to the ratings of competitors,
cluding dimensions are cultural in content). The which can be investigated in future studies.
grand means were 3.49, 4.18, 3.76, and 2.89, re-spectively, which were rather low ratings on the Implications and Recommendations
7-point scale (1= Excellent, 7 = Extremely poor),
Using a comprehensive measurement tech- with the ranking of quality perception as Culture,
nique, this study provides findings confirming the Attractions, Comfort, and Basics. In other words,
results of previous studies. It restates a known although Turkey was rated average on all factors,
problem: Turkey has a negative image or none at perceptions of Culture and Attractions were better
all as an international travel destination. The study than for Basics and Comfort. As a travel
destina-results revealed an image of Turkey rather on the tion, Turkey has some level of attraction but does
negative side, with mean ratings approximately not look safe and comfortable enough for
respon-between good (3) and poor (5). The rating of the dents. Frequent responses given to the open-ended
“Safety and security” dimension was the worst questions showed a lack of image or a
stereotypi-(4.51), while that of “Unique culture and customs’ cal image as was also revealed by Ger (1991, 1997);
was the best (2.54). Four factors were revealed students associate Turkey with Middle Eastern,
through factor analysis: 1) Attractions (including Muslim, and Arabic and thus a desert climate.
features that people usually want in tourist desti- Similar to the findings of Baloglu and Mangaloglu
nations), 2) Basics (including dimensions related (2001), this study also revealed references to
cul-to basic human needs, especially for a foreign ture, history, and heritage in relation to both
gen-eral images and tourist attractions. tourist destination), 3) Comfort (including
dimen-Although the study subjects had never been to services for tourists. This could be achieved through promotional texts and images that induce Turkey, they were aware that it is rich in tourist
attractions, especially cultural and historical, which trust, such as testimonial advertising by celebrities
about their personal experiences in Turkey. At the was also the case for US-based travel
intermediar-ies (Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001). Therefore, same time, actions should be taken to evaluate the
tourism infrastructure and eliminate problems. The there is evidence that Turkey’s historical riches
may provide a competitive edge in the interna- Ministry of Tourism needs to play a unifying role
for tourism organizations at all levels. Planning tional travel market. This dimension needs to be
emphasized consistently in the promotional efforts and implementing a uniform promotional strategy
and improving facilities and services are of utmost of destination marketing organizations (DMOs) in
Turkey. Responses to the open-ended questions importance to enhance Turkey’s image as a travel
destination. Travel writers in distant markets indicated that Istanbul is a very important tourism
asset. Considering that Paris is a major factor in (Milo & Yoder, 1991) and special events
(Wester-beek, Turner, & Ingerson, 2002) also could be part drawing millions of tourists to France, it might
benefit Turkey to develop a similar association of the strategy. As mentioned earlier, study abroad
programs could be used effectively to form and with Istanbul.
The subjects of this study believed that Turkey improve the image of Turkey in the Western
world. This would require cooperation between may not meet their standards in terms of facilities
and services for basic human needs and comfort tourism marketers and universities in Turkey.
A strategic move would be differentiated brand-and convenience, as was revealed by answers to
the closed (7-point Likert scale) questions. These ing of Turkey as a travel destination in different
markets (i.e., focus on a few strong aspects that negative perceptions may be due to media reports
about Turkey in connection with religious and po- have functional and emotional value for the target
market). Turkey shares touristic attributes with litical unrest in the Middle East. This image needs
to be taken seriously by those who market Turkey several other countries, especially in the
Mediter-ranean region (Kotler & Gertner, 2002; Morgan, as a travel destination, and efforts should be made
to counteract it. Pritchard, & Piggott, 2002). To assure or boost the
quality of its touristic products, Turkey can engage Responses to the closed questions manifest an
approach–avoidance attitude: positive perceptions in joint branding (Rao & Ruekert, 1994) or
coop-erative destination branding (Cai, 2002). This of Turkey’s attractions and negative views about
tourism basics. The open-ended questions revealed could be done with different levels of operators in
the service delivery channel, such as airlines, ho-a similho-ar conflict, ho-although the high rho-ate of
nonre-sponse suggests a clear image of Turkey is lack- tels, and restaurants. Successful franchises in the
international arena, such as Hilton, Sheraton, Club ing. This is a relatively positive outcome, because
it should be easier to develop a new image for a Med, and McDonald’s, which are also considered
successful service brands (Kotler, Bowen, & Ma-destination than to change a negative one, which
is a long and difficult process (Gartner, 1993). As kens, 2003, p. 312), can be pursued in this type of
joint branding. Also, joint branding of destinations is emphasized by Baloglu and Mangaloglu (2001),
travel intermediaries are very important agents in within the country as well as with neighbors could
be possible. image formation, especially for international
desti-nations. Turkish marketers need to focus on form- Turkey’s positive unique characteristics,
espe-cially its cultural heritage, even if idiosyncratic, ing and strengthening a positive image in the
minds of these agents, who in turn influence po- should not be stifled, because tourists sometimes
seek unexpected and spontaneous experiences tential travelers.
The Ministry of Tourism needs to initiate cam- (Buhalis, 2000). A branding strategy will require
marketing research, especially a comprehensive paigns that emphasize the attractions of Turkey,
especially cultural and historical riches, and im- image assessment (Kotler & Gertner, 2002;
Mor-gan et al., 2002). Also, perceived benefits and con-prove the perception of comforts, facilities, and
straints (or facilitators and inhibitors) of Turkey as References a travel destination need to be evaluated, because
Alhemoud, A., & Armstrong, E. (1996). Image of tourism positive perceptions on some attributes may just
attractions in Kuwait. Journal of Travel Research, 34,
not be enough to draw people (for details on these 76–80.
concepts, see Botha, Crompton, & Kim, 1999; Aslantas, H. (2002). Turkiye’nin turizm stratejisi ve tanitim
politikalari. II Turizm Surasi Bildirileri, II. Cilt.
An-Shu, Crompton, & Witt, 1996; Um & Crompton,
kara: T. C. Turizm Bakanligi. 1990, 1992; Zins, 1998).
Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiar-The lack of a clear image of Turkey, especially
ity index: Informational and experiential dimensions. its East–West identity problem, is also rooted in
Tourism Management, 22, 127–133.
international business and political organizations. Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of
Turkey is considered to be a European country by tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4),
11–15. the World Tourism Organization and the
Organi-Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu M. (2001). Tourism destination zation for Economic Cooperation and
Develop-images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy as perceived ment (OECD), but it is viewed as Asian or Middle
by US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism
Eastern by the United Nations (Sonmez & Sira- Management, 22, 1–9.
kaya, 2002). This issue needs to be addressed Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). U.S. International
through strategic political actions by the Turkish travelers’ images of four Mediterranean destinations: A
comparison of visitors and nonvisitors. Journal of Travel government. The country’s geographic and
politi-Research, 38, 144–152.
cal position, and thus its image, would be
stabi-Bojanic, D. C. (1991). The use of advertising in managing lized and strengthened if Turkey were a member
destination image. Tourism Management, 12, 353–355.
of the European Union (Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002). Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. S. (1999).
Develop-Because the study results are based on a student ing a revised competitive position for Sun/Lost City,
population, suggestions provided above might be South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4), 341–
352. considered relevant to the student market only.
Bramwell, B., & Rawding, L. (1996). Tourism marketing However, because the study results are
commen-images of industrial cities. Annals of Tourism, 23, 201– surate with the findings of previous studies on the
221. image of Turkey (Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001;
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination
Ger, 1991, 1997; Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002), the of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116.
findings of this study might provide insights when Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural
destina-tions. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 720–742. dealing with other market segments too. Thus,
Calantone, R. J., Benedetto, A. D., Hakam, A., & Bojanic, whether or not students rely heavily on travel
D. C. (1989). Multiple multinational tourism position-agents, whether or not they respond to testimonials
ing using correspondence analysis. Journal of Travel from celebrities, or whether or not they are
respon-Research, 28, 25–32.
sive to hotel or restaurant brands may be irrelevant Chen, J. S., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2000). Measurement of
Ko-for these suggestions to make sense in light of dif- rean tourists’ perceived images of overseas destinations.
Journal of Travel Research, 38, 411–416.
ferent market segments. Besides, the student
mar-Chen, P. J., & Kerstetter, D. L. (1999). International stu-ket of today is a potential adult marstu-ket segment of
dents’ image of rural Pennsylvania as a travel destina-the near future, potentially when destina-the changes in
tion. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 256–266. policies and marketing activities would take
af-Chon, K. S. (1991). Tourism destination image
modifica-fect. However, a viable subject for future studies tion process—marketing implications. Tourism
Man-would be the type of celebrities and brands that agement, 12, 68–72.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of would be appropriate in attracting different
seg-Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of ments considering the strong culture feature of
geographical location upon that image. Journal of Turkey’s image. Besides, future studies can
inves-Travel Research, 17(1), 18–23.
tigate what Turkey is currently doing in terms of
Dadgostar, B., & Isotalo, R. M. (1992). Factors affecting
advertising so that interested parties can under- time spent by near-home tourists in city destinations.
stand how suggestions for change provided in this Journal of Travel Research, 30, 34–39.
Dann, G. M. S. (1996) Tourists’ images of a destina-text challenge the traditional applications.
tion—an alternative analysis. Recent Advances in Tour- Kozak, R. (2003). Turistik cekim merkezi olarak Turkiye imaji: Iki Asya-Pasifik ulkesi (Avustralya ve Yeni
Zel-ism Marketing Research, 5(1/2), 41–55.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measure- anda) seyahat aracilari temsilcileri uzerine bir calisma.
Antolia-Turizm Arastirmalari Dergisi, 14(2), 141–149.
ment of destination image: An empirical assessment.
Journal of Travel Research, 31, 3–13. Lubbe, B. (1998). Primary image as a dimension of destina-tion image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences
between prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors to and Tourism Marketing, 7(4), 21–43.
MacKay, K., & Fesenmaier, D. (1997). Pictorial element the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel
Re-search, 30, 10–16. of destination in image formation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24, 537–565.
Fridgen, J. D. (1987). Use of cognitive maps to determine
perceived tourism regions. Leisure Sciences, 9, 101– MacKay, K., & Fesenmaier, D. (2000). An exploration of cross-cultural destination image assessment. Journal of 117.
Gartner, W. C. (1989). Tourism image: Attribute measure- Travel Research, 38(4), 417–423.
Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness ment of state tourism products using multidimensional
scaling techniques. Journal of Travel Research, 28, and familiarity with a destination: The Central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research, 33, 21–27.
16–20.
Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. Journal Milo, K. J., & Yoder, S. L. (1991, Summer). Recovery from natural disaster: Travel writers and tourist
destina-of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(2/3), 191–215.
Gartner, W. C., & Shen, J. (1992). The impact of Tianan- tions. Journal of Travel Research, 36–39.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2002) New men Square on China’s tourism image. Journal of
Travel Research, 30, 47–52. Zealand, 100% pure. The creation of a powerful niche
destination brand. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4/ Ger, G. (1991). Country image: Perceptions, attitudes,
asso-ciations and their relationships to context. In R. R. Dho- 5), 335–354.
Murphy, L. (1999). Australia’s image as a holiday destina-lakia & K. C. Bothra (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Marketing and Develop- tion—perceptions of backpacker visitors. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(3), 21–45. ment (pp. 390–398). New Delhi, India.
Ger, G. (1997). Bati’nin gozunde Turkiye’nin imaji. Gorus Ozsoy, O. (1999). Dunu, Bugunu, Yariniyla Turkiye’yi
Dunya’ya Acmak. Istanbul: Ziya Ofset.
Sayi:29, Ocak-Subat, TUSIAD Yayini, Istanbul.
Goodrich, J. N. (1978). A new approach to image analysis Rao, A. R., & Ruekert, R. (1994). Brand alliances as sig-nals of product quality. Sloan Management Review, through multidimensional scaling. Journal of Travel
Re-search, 16, 3–7. 36(1), 87.
Reilly, M. (1990). Free elicitation of descriptive adjectives Hair, Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black,
W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New York: for tourism image assessment. Journal of Travel
Re-search, 28, 21–26.
Macmillan.
Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). Measuring destination Selby, M., & Morgan, N. J. (1996). Reconstructing place image—a case study of its role in destination market attractiveness: A contextual approach. Journal of Travel
Research, 32(2), 25–34. research. Tourism Management, 17(4), 287–294.
Sezer, H., & Harrison, A. (1994). Tourism in Greece and Hunt, J. D. (1975). Image as a factor in tourist
develop-ment. Journal of Travel Research, 13, 1–7. Turkey: An economic view for planners. In A. V. Seaton et al. (Eds.), Tourism—the state of the art (pp. Joppe, M., Martin, D. W., & Waalen, J. (2001). Toronto’s
image as a destination; a comparative importance-satis- 74–84). London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Shu, T., Crompton, J. L., & Witt, P. A. (1996). Integrating faction analysis by origin of visitors. Journal of Travel
Research, 39(3), 252–260. constraints and benefits to identify responsive target
markets for museum attractions. Journal of Travel Re-Kircioglu, N., & Nazilli, S. (1983). Dis Tanitim ve Turizm.
Turkiye Is Bankasi Yay (pp. 229–309). Ankara. search, 35(2), 34–45.
Sonmez, S., & Sirakaya, E. (2002) A distorted destination Kotler, P. (1994). Marketing management: Analysis,
plan-ning, implementation and control (8th ed.) Paramus, NJ: image? The case of Turkey. Journal of Travel Research,
41(2), 185–196.
Prentice Hall International.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (2003). Marketing for Tapachai, N., & Waryszak, R. (2000). An examination of the role of beneficial image in tourist destination
selec-hospitality and tourism (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. tion. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 37–44.
T.C. Turizm Bakanlıg˘ı (Turkish Ministry of Culture and Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product,
and beyond: A place marketing and brand management Tourism) (2002). Turizm I˙statistikleri Bu¨lteni, Ankara. Tolunguc, A. (1999). Turizmde Tanitma ve Reklam. Media perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4/5),
249–261. Cat Yayinlari, Ankara.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants Korzay, M. (1994). Turkish tourism development. In A. V.
Seaton et al. (Eds.), Tourism—the state of the art (pp. in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism
Re-search, 17, 432–448.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1992). The roles of perceived Yesiltepe, A. (2003). Amerikan okul kitaplarinda Turk im-gesi. NTVMSNBC (release date 05/05/2003). Retrieved inhibitors and facilitators in pleasure travel destination
decisions. Journal of Travel Research, 30(3), 18. July 14, 2003, from http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/ 150637.asp
Walmsley, D. J., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images
and tourism: The use of personal constructs to describe Yildirim, H. (2002). Kimligini arayan Turk Devrimi. Turk Kimligi (release date 07/08/2002). Retrieved July 14, the structure of destination images. Journal of Travel
Research, 36(3), 65–69. 2003, from http://historicalsense.com/Archive/Turk_kim_
3.htm Westerbeek, H. M., Turner, P., & Ingerson, L. (2002). Key
success factors in bidding for hallmark sporting events. Zins, A. H. (1998). Leisure traveler choice models of theme hotels using psychographics. Journal of Travel Research,
International Marketing Review, 19(2/3), 303–323.
World Tourism Organization. (2004). In facts & figures— 36(4), 3–15. tourism market trends—inbound tourism. Retrieved
Oc-tober 20, 2004, from http://www.world-tourism.org/ facts/tmt.html
